Breaking the Pattern: Why Professor Joash Amupitan’s INEC Chairmanship Is Merit, Not “Yorubacentricism"
Recent developments in Nigeria’s political landscape have sparked intense public debate following President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s appointment of Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan as Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Some critics have labelled the move “Yorubacentric,” but a closer, evidence-based look at history, geography, and qualifications reveals that this criticism is misplaced. This post unpacks the facts and explores why Professor Amupitan’s appointment reflects merit, regional inclusion, and institutional reform rather than ethnic bias.
What the Official Announcements Say
On October 9 and 10, 2025, the National Council of State unanimously approved Professor Joash Amupitan’s nomination as the new INEC Chairman. President Tinubu presented Amupitan to fill the vacancy left by Professor Mahmood Yakubu, whose decade-long tenure concluded in October. Importantly, Tinubu emphasized that Amupitan is the first person from Kogi State—North-Central Nigeria—to ever be nominated for the INEC chairmanship. The President also described Amupitan as “apolitical.”
Amupitan, 58, was born in Ayetoro Gbede, Ijumu Local Government Area, Kogi State. He holds a stellar academic and legal profile:
LL.B., LL.M., and Ph.D. in Law from the University of Jos.
Academic appointments at the University of Jos, including roles as Head of Public Law, Dean of Faculty of Law, and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration).
He became a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) in 2014.
Author of legal works in Company Law, Law of Evidence, Corporate Governance, Privatisation Law, etc.
Reactions From Across the Political Spectrum
Support has been widespread. Key stakeholders—including opposition members, state governors, legal professionals, civil society, and Northern groups—have praised the appointment as reflective of merit, fairness, and institutional integrity:
The Coalition of Opposition Lawmakers called Amupitan’s appointment “well deserved,” citing his rich academic, legal, and administrative record, and urged him to “write his name in gold” in delivering transparent elections.
The North-Central APC Forum expressed pride that one of their own with “illustrious” credentials is now leading INEC; they emphasized that it is a move toward restoring trust and credibility in elections.
Governor Caleb Mutfwang (Plateau State) hailed Amupitan as “detribalised” and a “towering intellectual” whose integrity and service have remote appeal beyond ethnicity.
The Arewa Think Tank described the appointment as “strategic,” lauding Amupitan’s professionalism, integrity, and potential contribution to strengthening democratic institutions.
There has also been cautious optimism. Opposition parties, especially, have urged Amupitan to uphold his mandate with fairness, neutrality, and transparency.
Historical Context: Chairmen of INEC & Its Predecessors
To assess claims of “Yorubacentricism,” it helps to review who has held the chairmanship of Nigeria’s election commissions since 1960:
Eyo Esua — Cross River (1964–1966)
Michael Ani — Cross River (1976–1979)
Victor Ovie-Whiskey — Delta (1980–1983)
Eme Awa — Abia (1987–1989)
Humphrey Nwosu — Anambra (1989–1993)
Okon Edet Uya — Akwa-Ibom (1993)
Sumner Dagogo-Jack — Rivers (1994–1998)
Ephraim Akpata — Edo (1998–2000)
Abel Guobadia — Edo (2000–2005)
Maurice Iwu — Imo (2005–2010)
Attahiru Jega — Kebbi (2010–2015)
Amina Bala Zakari (acting) — Jigawa (2015)
Mahmood Yakubu — Bauchi (2015–2025)
In all this time, no one from Kogi State (North-Central) or of Lukumi Yoruba origin has held the post. So Amupitan isn’t breaking tradition in favour of an already common pattern—he is breaking a gap of almost 65 years. The historical record therefore weighs against allegations that this is yet another case of Yoruba dominance.
Ethnicity vs. Qualifications: What Really Matters?
Given the facts, three core points emerge:
1. Regional Representation: Amupitan’s appointment expands the geographic inclusion of leadership. It’s not about adding more Yoruba faces, but about correcting long-standing regional imbalances.
2. Ethnicity & Identity: While Amupitan is of Lukumi Yoruba heritage, his origin in Kogi State (North-Central) and his long service in Jos (Plateau State) place him in a broader Nigerian, rather than purely Yoruba, frame. He is not simply “Southwest Yoruba” leading from his cultural base; this is a man whose academic, legal, and administrative identity is strongly tied to institutions outside the Yoruba Southwest.
3. Merit and Track Record: His credentials—academic, professional, moral—are robust. His legal work, governance roles, publications, and elevation to SAN indicate he has earned national respect. Many of the opponents of his appointment have acknowledged this. The criticisms, as recorded, are less about qualification and more about speculation, political suspicion, or fear of change.
Why the “Yorubacentricism” Claim Doesn’t Hold
First of its kind: As the official statement noted, no one from Kogi State, North-Central, has ever occupied the INEC chair. If anything, appointing Amupitan is the first time an individual from this region has held that office.
Wide public support: Support has come from all geopolitical zones—including the North, Southeast, and Southwest—as well as from parties in opposition. Critics are fewer and mostly speculative.
Precedents of regional influences: Yes, past leadership teams have had ethnic or regional concentrations. But many factors explain this: political power structures, population spread, party majorities, historical dominance of certain regions politically or militarily. The appointment of a qualified candidate from a previously underrepresented region suggests an attempt to redress imbalance rather than perpetuate it.
No evidence of partisan favoritism based purely on ethnicity: What’s being stressed by most supporters is not Amupitan’s ethnic background, but his lack of current partisan ties, his academic reputation, and his readiness to take on the challenges facing INEC.
What Should Be the Criteria for Assessment Going Forward
Given the controversy, it is only fair that public discourse shift focus toward measurable standards. Here are some suggested yardsticks:
Transparency of INEC’s processes: From voter registration, party registration, procurement of materials, down to result collation and dispute resolution.
Impartiality in practice: How Amupitan handles electoral petitions, the treatment of all political parties (including weaker ones), and whether he resists political pressure.
Efficiency and innovation: Use of technology, logistic competence, timely delivery of election materials, and deployment of ad hoc staff.
Legal competence: Given his academic background in law of evidence, Amupitan is in a position to push for reforms that reduce litigation and make electoral adjudication more predictable.
Public confidence: Surveys, media reports, turnout, and perception—whether Nigerians feel elections are fair, credible, and their votes count.
Conclusion: A Call for Nuanced, Evidence-Based Evaluation
Professor Joash Amupitan’s appointment as INEC Chairman is historic—not because of ethnicity solely, but because it disrupts a longstanding norm of regional under-representation, and because it is anchored in merit. Claims of “Yorubacentricism,” however rhetorically powerful, do not withstand scrutiny in light of the facts: his first ever representation of Kogi/North-Central, his apolitical bent, his legal and academic track record, and widespread cross-regional endorsement.
For his part, Amupitan has an opportunity to vindicate this appointment through action. If he rises to the demands of the position—fairness, impartiality, transparency and competence—then history will likely judge this not as another politics of ethnicity, but as a turning point toward a more inclusive and credible democracy in Nigeria.
0 Comments